Allahabad High Court
RAMBABU PATEL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, directing that the petitioners may file an appeal within two weeks, with condonation of delay, and stayed any coercive action for three months.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a demolition order dated 2 December 2021 that was preceded by a final notice on 31 July 2021 and a subsequent notice on 13 August 2021. They argued that the Prayagraj Development Authority’s inaction from 2021 to 2026 amounted to a waiver of the notice and the order, and that they should be given a fresh notice before the order could be enforced. The Authority contended that the petitioners had filed a reply on 25 August 2026 and that any grievance must be pursued by filing an appeal under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The Court held that the petitioners may file an appeal within two weeks, that any delay in filing can be condoned, and that the appeal should be decided within two months, with a stay on coercive action for three months. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of without granting a fresh notice.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay by the Prayagraj Development Authority amounts to a waiver of the demolition notice and order
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a fresh notice before the demolition order can be enforced
- Whether the appeal period under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 can be extended and the delay condoned
Legislation cited
Subjects
- notice waiver
- demolition order
- appeal
- condonation of delay
- urban planning
- development authority
- writ petition
- coercive action stay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38575 of 2026
Rambabu Patel And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kuldeep Kumar Vishwakarma,
Sandeep Kumar Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Darshan Gupta
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a final
notice was given to the petitioner was dated 31.7.2021. Thereafter,
another notice dated 13.8.2021 was sent to the petitioner. The final order,
thereafter, was passed for demolition on 2.12.2021.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that ever since 2021 till 2026, the
Prayagraj Development Authority slept over the matter and, therefore, the
petitioner was of the opinion that there was a possibility that they might
have waived the notice and the order. He, therefore, submits that now
when the order had been passed on 20.8.2026, the petitioner ought to have
been given one more opportunity by way of notice to be issued by
Prayagraj Development Authority.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for Prayagraj Development Authority Sri
Darshan Gupta states that from the record it is evident that petitioner has
submitted a reply dated 25.8.2026. From the record, we also find that
reply of the petitioner is there on record dated 25.8.2026.
4. Learned Counsel for Prayagraj Development Authority further states
that the final order has been passed on 2.12.2021 and if the petitioner is
aggrieved by the said order, he may file an appeal under Section 27 (2) of
the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
5. Considering the rival submissions, we are of he view that if the
WRIC No. 38575 of 2026
2
petitioner files an appeal within a period of 2 weeks, the delay in filing
the appeal be condoned and the appeal be decided within 2 months
thereafter.
6. For a period of 3 months, no coercieve action shall be taken against the
petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 24, 2026
Irshad
Digitally signed by :-
IRSHAD AHMAD SIDDIQUI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…